112 STUDENTS WHO HAVE PASSED THEIR EXAMINATION. 
better than by supposing that, 1000 years ago, a trial had taken place to ascer¬ 
tain whether the earth moved round the sun, or the sun round the earth. 
We know very well that people would say we have the evidence of our senses, 
of our eyes, and we see that the sun goes round us; they would not, conse¬ 
quently, believe the men of science; and yet we know, gentlemen, that they 
would have argued upon sound principles, principles which, although the 
people could not understand them, yet must be true. This is precisely the 
case with the evidence upon the opening of the body. These gentlemen of 
science say, we saw a state of things which must have existed before the 26th 
of February. 
Gentlemen, you and I may not understand them—we are not men of 
science, and, therefore, we cannot expect to do so. What we have to do is 
to exercise our best judgment upon the evidence which is brought before us. 
The scientific men are called, and they state that the right lobe of the lung 
and also a portion of the left were disorganized for all useful purposes; that 
they had become like liver, a close substance; and then they reason on this 
fact, and say that it began before the sale, and that it was caused by inflam¬ 
mation, which had not been properly cured, and that it had fallen into a sub¬ 
acute state, and deposited this matter; that the irritation had gone off, and 
the j horse appeared well. Certainly, gentlemen, I am only surprised that 
the appearance of the horse was not more inconsistent with its diseased state. 
I should have thought that it would have been so. I cannot say it may be 
so, but gentlemen have sworn to certain facts, and there is no reason why 
we should disbelieve them. 
Then they say that this disease existed in a torpid subacute state, and 
that the lungs were thereby more likely to become more diseased from other 
causes; and that, by sympathy, inflammation of the bowels might be brought 
on. Here I will observe, that, whether the horse died of inflammation of 
the lungs or of the bowels, as suggested by Mr. Kent, does not much matter. 
At the same time, however, I must observe that Mr. Kent does not come 
before you without an interest in the case, for, should your verdict be for the 
defendant, he would be bound in honour to return the T60. Mr. Nathaniel 
Leigh then states [see Mr. N. Leigh's evidence.'] What you will have to 
decide, then, is whether he is a sensible man, and of acute observation—in 
other words, whether he is a competent witness. Mr. N. P. Leigh is then 
called, and he is of opinion that the disease must have existed before the 
26th of February. He does not give a very different account, for he says 
[see Mr. N. P. Leigh's evidence]. Then comes Mr. Norfolk, who has not seen 
the horse, but has seen the lungs, and he says that, in his opinion, the disease 
must have existed before the 26th of February. I do not know that I need 
take up more of your time; there are, of course, little differences in the tes¬ 
timony, but the witnesses substantially agree as to the morbid state of the 
lungs existing before the 26th of February. It wUl not be your province to 
say of which disease the horse died. The question you have to determine 
is, whether or not the horse was sound on the 26th of February. 
Verdict for the Plaintiff for the amount claimed. 
Gentlemen who have passed their Examination at the 
Royal Veterinary College, London. 
January \bth, 1840. 
Mr. G. Broad, Dorking. 
— William Law, London. 
—• John Shapland, Barnstaple. 
— W. J. Hinge, Hounslow. 
January 22r/. 
Mr. J. Batchelder, Norwich. 
— J. Bowles, Cambridge. 
— R. N. Clarkson, Dublin. 
— J. Plomley, Maidstone. 
